Am genuinely worried about what is happening in UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sunny said:
Well, by that logic, why not just kill everybody on earth? There would be no more violent crime.
Click to expand...
why, is everyone committing crimes then ?... we're talking here about people who have committed heinous crimes.. that it's been proved without any doubt that these people are guilty. Why should they be fed and housed by the taxpayer and more importantly the families of their victims..?

if a dog or any animal killed a human there would be no discussion, they would be shot instantly.... and that's precisely what should happen to humans who kill other humans for fun.. or just because they can..
 

Last edited:
hollydolly said:
yes but if they are executed they don't get to commit another crime.. and even if tey don't get killed they never get released...
Click to expand...
Do you have life in prison without the possibility of parole? It would be the same and give the same result?
 
chic said:
Do you have life in prison without the possibility of parole? It would be the same and give the same result?
Click to expand...
Nope...generally life here means 15 years and out in 10... of course there are people who have gone away for the rest of their lives.. but they're few and far between

However life without parole, and death isn't the same thing when it comes to the tax payer having to fund the rest of their lives. These murderers get paid a wage albeit a small one while in prison, their clothing and food and housing is paid for to the tune of many thousands of pounds per prisoner per year... they get to see their loved ones regulalry , speak to them on the phone, watch TV, play games go to the gym, .. some even get conjugal visits...

How is that right ?.. how and why should the law abiding public and the victims of these monsters have to fund their lifestyle..

We wouldn't be expected to keep a rabid dog in kennels getting well looked after..if it killed someone.. and that's precisely what these people are..
 
January said:
Sure, if you are writing a university thesis.

For general information - it seems people only disputing its accuracy when it says something that doesn't suit their narrative.
And yes of course it might have added information next week- unlikely to be complete different and unlikely to be added to frequently but, yes of course information gets updated.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's not even allowed in middle schools. Wikipedia is user generated content. I have a MLIS and have taught courses on proper source selection; Wikipedia isn't allowed.
 
Last edited:
chic said:
It doesn't deter violent crime though. Not that I have seen,
Click to expand...
the other thing is Chic... you're saying that there's hardly any executions carried out.. and that you don't see that the death penalty deters' violent crime..

Well perhaps if they stopped keeping people on death row for 30 years or more before killing them, then it would be more of a deterrent. How many murderers, and gang members and baby killers both male and female are there going to be if they knew that within a few months of their crime.. and being found guilty they would be dead?

i think you would see a vast reduction in Killings if they knew an eye for an eye was going to e exacted on them very shortly after they were tried in court..
 
AnnieA said:
Wrong. It's not even allowed in middle schools. Wikipedia is user generated content. I have a MLIS and have taught courses on proper source selection; Wikipedia isn't allowed.
Click to expand...

Yes it is user generated - but also vetted and must fit guidelines as to objectivity, cited sources etc

of course - because students need t o learn how to research from original sources. The y could use Wiki as a starting point to find those original sources since Wiki does cite them

For general information purposes - like on a chat forum - it provides the information - and the only time you see people objecting to it is when the information doesn't suit their narrative.

I think this tangent has run its course so I'm not saying anything else about Wiki now.
 

hollydolly said:
i think you would see a vast reduction in Killings if they knew an eye for an eye was going to e exacted on them very shortly after they were tried in court..
Click to expand...

Given killing sprees are as common in places which do have death penalty, it would seem not.

and many of the killers in such crimes then either shoot themselves or are shot by police - so death is hardly a deterrant for them.
 
hollydolly said:
the other thing is Chic... you're saying that there's hardly any executions carried out.. and that you don't see that the death penalty deters' violent crime..

Well perhaps if they stopped keeping people on death row for 30 years or more before killing them, then it would be more of a deterrent. How many murderers, and gang members and baby killers both male and female are there going to be if they knew that within a few months of their crime.. and being found guilty they would be dead?

i think you would see a vast reduction in Killings if they knew an eye for an eye was going to e exacted on them very shortly after they were tried in court..
Click to expand...
Yes. Some people do say that. I don't remember many executions. Ted Bundy, the famous American serial killer WAS executed. I remember this. But otherwise it's fairly rare to see.
 
I have found through life that those who have been treated harshly have a harsh view of most things. Just an observation, IMO
 
chic said:
It doesn't deter violent crime though. Not that I have seen,
Click to expand...
It’s not meant to deter violent crime. It’s meant to dish out punishment. You kill kids or masses of people or are a serial killer, it’s meant to be used on those type of killers. When the death penalty was first enacted into law, the press stated it to be a deterrent against violent crimes. Pennsylvania’s last execution was 1999. We have over 100 sitting on death row.

In Pennsylvania, we had a moratorium placed on the death penalty that was signed by the ex-Governor, Tom Wolfe. Good riddance. He is a heck of a nice man, but did very little for the people in the state.

In some states, if the killer first tortures their victim before they kill the person, it has been used on them, as well.
 
911 said:
It’s not meant to deter violent crime. It’s meant to dish out punishment. You kill kids or masses of people or are a serial killer, it’s meant to be used on those type of killers. When the death penalty was first enacted into law, the press stated it to be a deterrent against violent crimes. Pennsylvania’s last execution was 1999. We have over 100 sitting on death row.

In Pennsylvania, we had a moratorium placed on the death penalty that was signed by the ex-Governor, Tom Wolfe. Good riddance. He is a heck of a nice man, but did very little for the people in the state.

In some states, if the killer first tortures their victim before they kill the person, it has been used on them, as well.
Click to expand...
The punishment to fit the crime is deserved. I accept that some disagree.
 
Last edited:
911 said:
It’s not meant to deter violent crime. It’s meant to dish out punishment. You kill kids or masses of people or are a serial killer, it’s meant to be used on those type of killers. When the death penalty was first enacted into law, the press stated it to be a deterrent against violent crimes. Pennsylvania’s last execution was 1999. We have over 100 sitting on death row.

In Pennsylvania, we had a moratorium placed on the death penalty that was signed by the ex-Governor, Tom Wolfe. Good riddance. He is a heck of a nice man, but did very little for the people in the state.

In some states, if the killer first tortures their victim before they kill the person, it has been used on them, as well.
Click to expand...
In many Middle east countries they barely even take a suspect to court.. and just exact an eye for an eye justice...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top